I'll go on: If a woman catches her husband with another woman and kills him, she is to be put to death like the oxen she is, like you would for one that has gored a man. If he catches her with another man and kills her, he is exercising his god given right because she is HIS PROPERTY.

On a side note, it was reading passages like this in the Bible that I, as a 16 yr old, realized my morality was better than God's. I am better than God. So, why would I worship something lesser than me? So when my parents stopped forcing me[1] to goto Church with them, I quit going.

On a side note, it was reading passages like this in the Bible that I, as a 16 yr old, realized my morality was better than God's. I am better than God. So, why would I worship something lesser than me? So when my parents stopped forcing me[1] to goto Church with them, I quit going.

The previous post is a more expansive restatement of your original premise, not a validation of it.

My argument is this...God is the moral Law giver so objective moral values are only grounded in the law giver without whom morals as i see it would become subjective.

I'm not getting what the problem is here, this is as basic as i can put the argument if it's not understood then the debate ends.

The problem is that you are claiming that morals can be objective only if they are issued by God. You are then asked to back up this claim, but instead of doing so, you simply restate it. You need to explain why morality can be objective only if it comes from God. If you don't see why you need to do this, then yes, you're right, the debate is probably not going to progress.

I said in the post that "(It is always wrong to kill,rape,torture ect innocent people) this is objective in that the moral agent doesn't get to choose weather or not it is right to rape, kill, torture, it always wrong and it always wrong because God has decreed it such as He is Good by nature."

This issue can be taken up and explained further if needed. This is my axiom as i sated at the start that cannot be proven but can be defended, God is revealed as Good in Scripture and the morals given coincide with the natural law written on our rational mind. When murderers kill there is remorse IF he is morally healthy and mentally fit and i think we all agree that along with his self condemnation he must be punished for breaking the law given by God not to kill one of His image bearers.

For me the best explanation of why Objective moral value exist are that they exist because the moral law giver is perfectly Good by nature and has endowed us with certain communicable attributes that enable us to recognize Good as Good and evil as evil. The problems arise when the image bearers decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and act independent of God. I'm not saying you have to be a theist to be moral but i am saying when you disregard the moral law giver as the grounding for the morality then you are open to decide to act as you see fit. When men do what is right in their own eyes then chaos ensues as accounted in a few Biblical narratives. Which will no doubt come up.

And this, then, would seem to be the crux of the problem. You are stating that "objective morality can only come from God" is axiomatic. Your opponent is refusing to accept it as an axiom and is instead asking you to support it. If you are either unwilling or unable to do so, then there would seem to be nothing to discuss.

I'm reminded of a talk I was having once with my ex. She was wondering about the necessity of things like the various planetary probes and rovers that NASA and other agencies send up. I told her it was because we needed to learn about the world around us. When she asked me why that was necessary, I told her that if she didn't understand it, I didn't know how to explain it to her -- to me, it was simply so obvious as to not need an explanation, and indeed it had never occurred to me that someone might ever ask for one. It sounds to me like you may be in a similar position here?

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

And this, then, would seem to be the crux of the problem. You are stating that "objective morality can only come from God" is axiomatic. Your opponent is refusing to accept it as an axiom and is instead asking you to support it. If you are either unwilling or unable to do so, then there would seem to be nothing to discuss.

I'm reminded of a talk I was having once with my ex. She was wondering about the necessity of things like the various planetary probes and rovers that NASA and other agencies send up. I told her it was because we needed to learn about the world around us. When she asked me why that was necessary, I told her that if she didn't understand it, I didn't know how to explain it to her -- to me, it was simply so obvious as to not need an explanation, and indeed it had never occurred to me that someone might ever ask for one. It sounds to me like you may be in a similar position here?

You misunderstand it's my Faith in the Bible as the word of God that is axiomatic. so you want me to prove a axiom before i can debate here ?

The premises have been expanded and explained i have done what has been asked of me, to ask me to prove an axiom is tantamount to refusing to engage.

L-Chaim, I think you're going to have a very difficult time trying to prove an a priori argument about objective morality by slipping in and using an a posteriori subjective knowledge such as the Bible.

You misunderstand it's my Faith in the Bible as the word of God that is axiomatic.

It sounds like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, but it's not really relevant, I guess.

Quote

so you want me to prove a axiom before i can debate here?

It's not me who's challenging your premises, it's your debating opponent. (Although if I were the one you were debating, I admit I'd be making the same challenge, inasmuch as I am an atheist and also believe that there is an objective morality.) As to proving something that you consider to be an axiom, you probably won't be asked to do that all the time, but when you enter a debate, you should be prepared for it -- particularly if the axiom or axioms you are assuming are religious in nature, and you are debating an atheist. An atheist is almost certainly going to reject any religiously-based axiom as actually being axiomatic.

Quote

The premises have been expanded and explained i have done what has been asked of me, to ask me to prove an axiom is tantamount to refusing to engage.

If I may presume to make a suggestion: you might want to consider how to prove an axiom if and when you are challenged to do so. It's one of the basic things you need to know and understand about debating someone. You may well regard "Assertion X" as being self-evidently true, but you should never assume that your opponent is going to do so, and that being the case, you should be prepared to back it up. This was what caught me off-guard when my ex asked me why we have to have a space program. I had always regarded its need as self-evident and thus was not able to explain why we needed to have one. I do understand it now, however, and can explain it if I am ever challenged on it again. If the topic of morality and objectivity is something you'd like to pursue not just here but with other non-believers in the future, you would do well to give the matter some thought. Just my two cents.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

You misunderstand it's my Faith in the Bible as the word of God that is axiomatic. so you want me to prove a axiom before i can debate here ?

In order for something to be an axiom, all parties involved in the discussion must accept it, and there is no reason to do so here. What you are attempting to claim is an axiom is no more than an a priori assumption. That does not work. It certainly fails the "self-evident" test, and you will find a minimum of 2/3rds of the world disagreeing with you.

Quote from: merriam-webster.com

Axiom:

1: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit 2: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference3: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

(Bolded one is the most important for our purposes here, but they all apply.)

So yes, you need to prove it. But no, it is not an axiom.

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

L-Chaim, I think you're going to have a very difficult time trying to prove an a priori argument about objective morality by slipping in and using an a posteriori subjective knowledge such as the Bible.

You misunderstand it's my Faith in the Bible as the word of God that is axiomatic. so you want me to prove a axiom before i can debate here ?

In order for something to be an axiom, all parties involved in the discussion must accept it, and there is no reason to do so here.

Wrong my faith in the Bible is not dependent on anyone else's involvement apart from Gods, and once again this is my axiom = the bible is the word of God....This is not directly part of the argument and hasn't been addressed in the debate as yet.

What you are attempting to claim is an axiom is no more than an a priori assumption. That does not work. It certainly fails the "self-evident" test, and you will find a minimum of 2/3rds of the world disagreeing with you.

It's the first principle in my Theology and many others. But why has this been brought up as it's not part of the main argument. I dont mind defending the Bible but why jump the gun, absolutely no points or premises i have raised have been addressed.

1: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit 2: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference3: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

(Bolded one is the most important for our purposes here, but they all apply.)

So yes, you need to prove it. But no, it is not an axiom.

Yeah... why dont you pick the definition most beneficial to your presuppositions. How about we discuss the first definition ? The Bible is accepted world wide as an authoritative Historical religious document and as such has intrinsic merit.

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit (establish boundaries which i'm trying to do) the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

for all those who are insisting that i prove a axiom.

Please read my opening statements again, im not arguing for a beyond a shadow of a doubt truth claim, i'm saying Christian Theism is the best explanation of the grounding of objective moral values, i have put forth the syllogism and explained the terms and given reasons why i think these premises are convincing on Theism. It seems to me you guys are insisting i prove God exists before i can put forward any claim which is absurd.

Once again i'm arguing without God there is no grounding for objective moral values...Reasons for this are as follows and should be attacked in order to have any kind of debate.

Objective moral values exist and are self evident...It is wrong to kill innocent people (Agree or disagree? or give your own primes)

In Christian Theism God is perfectly good and Holy and is the transcendent and eternal law giver and anchor for morality (God by nature is perfectly good). (Disagree or Disagree ?)

This is where you play your Euthyphro Dilemma card.

Without the transcendent law giver to anchor objective morals, morality becomes subjective so moral agents decide what is good and what is evil for themselves.. (agree or disagree ?)

But i am debtaing myself now so the debate is over but i dont really want to leave without actually doing anything. so i'll check back in hopefully.

Objective moral values exist and are self evident...It is wrong to kill innocent people (Agree or disagree? or give your own primes)

One would have to define what an 'innocent person' is ... but to address the point:

I think it is wrong to kill innocent people (subjective morality). The majority of people in the society I live in agree with this (subjective morality). Some people don't think it is wrong to kill innocent (subjective morality).

I don't see how "killing innocent people is wrong" is self-evidently an objective moral value. It is always subjective.

Quote

In Christian Theism God is perfectly good and Holy and is the transcendent and eternal law giver and anchor for morality (God by nature is perfectly good). (Disagree or Disagree ?)

Disagree. He is not perfectly good by my moral standards (which are subjective).

Quote

This is where you play your Euthyphro Dilemma card.

Without the transcendent law giver to anchor objective morals, morality becomes subjective so moral agents decide what is good and what is evil for themselves.. (agree or disagree ?)

Wrong. If god exists and morality is dictated by him, he is also an agent who is imposing his own subjective moral values.

Objective moral values exist and are self evident...It is wrong to kill innocent people (Agree or disagree? or give your own primes)

(Apparently) universally shared moral values exist, sure. But does that necessarily make them objective? Or merely subjective values that are common to all because we all share a same physiology? I quite agree it is wrong to kill innocent people....usually. But I would kill one innocent if by doing so I could save four. Whole civilisations have been quite happy killing the "innocent" to appese their gods, so not even "do not kill the innocent" can be considered a universal truth. As plethora pointed out, only by twisting and stretching the definition of "innocent" could that be considered universal.

Further: you noted earlier that it is shared provided "he is morally healthy"....in other words, if someone apparently breaks the universal and objective moral law, then they must be broken in some way (according to you) rather than being the exception that destroys your rule. I quite agree that they do not share the common morality......which seems to reinforce the fact that morality IS subjective. I've yet to see you actually SHOW that any morality is truly objective, just that within your circular argument it "must be so".

It is wrong to kill innocent people (Agree or disagree?)God is perfectly good and Holy and is the transcendent and eternal law giver and anchor for morality (God by nature is perfectly good). (Disagree or Disagree ?)

Responding "agree" to both those questions would require that god must in all circumstances follow his own moral law, or els by definition could not be the "anchor for morality" and hence showing that morality is not objective. I could cite cases where I believe the Biblical god has breached the alleged objective morality of "wrong to kill innocent people".....I'm sure you would respond with a spin-doctoring of "innocent", but that would then require that you go back and re-define "innocent" before you can use that as an example of "objective".....you may want to do that now? The only alternative, so far as I can see, is to assert that there is a different moral standard for god and for man.....but then that hardly makes morality "objective" either.

The logical syllogism was valid the primes's were coherent, the terms were defined. I obviously need work when communicating with atheists.....

As I mentioned earlier in this thread....yes, that may all be true. Without predjudice (as I haven't sat down carefully to consider all the ramifications), your argument is valid in construction, yes; and if your axioms are assumed as self-evident then yes: your argument is sound. Hurrah, you win the debate! Go back to your fellow Christians and boast of your victory!

But you are also right in that - yes, you DO need work communicating with atheists, since your axioms are NOT all self-evident and agreed by all. Sure - for those who believe, this argument is a winner.....but then who cares about an argument that only works if you BELIEVE it is true? My argument about cats works if you just BELIEVE all cats are blue, but so what?

There IS nothing wrong with your argument (subject to my caveat above) - but you have NOT demonstrated the truth of your axioms. Had I been curious girl, frankly my first response would have been no more than to say:

Yeah... why dont you pick the definition most beneficial to your presuppositions. How about we discuss the first definition ? The Bible is accepted world wide as an authoritative Historical religious document and as such has intrinsic merit.

As previously mentioned 2/3 of the entire world do not believe in the Bible as anything other than a book of mythology and half of those that do believe in the Bible also has another book that they use as well as the Bible, it is called the Qu'Ran. Only 1/6 of the world is Christian or even calles itself Christian. To the rest of us, God is as real as Santa Claus. This is not "widely believed." Christians are a minority. This also goes for MathisCool's argumentum for popularity, as for one of the reasons it is a logical fallacy. Debating your stance on the Bible is just as correct as one that based thier arguement on the Qu'Ran or anything else that involves any gods.

I'll reiterate the only people who accept the Bible as anything authoritive is only the 2/3 that are Christians and Muslims. Even then Mohammed had to "fix" the broken Bible by writting the Qu'Ran. Since Moses couldn't take constructive criticism and thought he was perfect[1] and didn't need a proof reader...

Objective moral values exist and are self evident...It is wrong to kill innocent people (Agree or disagree?

Disagree.

At Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Allies killed thousands of babies and children, who by any standard were 'innocent' and didn't deserve to die. Yet most (but not all) people think that killing them was the right thing to do in the circumstances.

So "killing innocent people is wrong" is evidently not objective or self-evidently true. It depends on the circumstances.

And even if you could come up with an action which everybody agreed was wrong - this would only mean that it was a universal truth - not an objective one, according to your own definition of objective : By objective i mean not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations.

Quote

In Christian Theism God is perfectly good and Holy and is the transcendent and eternal law giver and anchor for morality (God by nature is perfectly good). (Disagree or Disagree ?)

Disagree.

Exodus 32, 9-14. God contemplates kiling all the Israelites for worshipping the Golden Calf, Moses talks him out of it:

9And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people; 10Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

There are many more examples of God behaving in ways which can be considered evil by today's standards. The genocides committed by Joshua on entering the Promised Land are an example - and unlike the Allies in Japan, Joshua and the Israelites were the aggressors.

Or God's punishment of David for committing adultery and arranging for Bathsheba's husband to be killed - God killed their child. My, how moral is that?

Do you actually know what a priori and a posteriori knowledge actually are? A priori refers to knowledge that is independent of experience, whereas a posteriori refers to knowledge that is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. Therefore, the Bible is indeed a posteriori knowledge, since you have to have experience with the Bible to be able to make any claims about it at all. In fact, you contradicted yourself by saying that it was revelatory knowledge but not a posteriori knowledge; something that is revelatory means you have to have experienced it.

No offense, but I don't think you're ready for this debate. I mean, if you can have this kind of a basic misunderstanding of what other people are saying, what else might you be having trouble with? For example, while it is true that an axiom is assumed true without proof (a priori), the axiom has to be accepted by all parties involved. One person can't simply declare something to be an axiom if they are having a debate or discussion with other people. This is one of the reasons why arguments between people with significantly different philosophies don't generally work, because neither is willing to grant the other's axioms, so they spend their time arguing about those rather than getting to the meat of the argument.

That is happening here and now; this argument will go nowhere as long as you insist that the axioms have to be accepted and curiousgirl insists that they have to be supported. The way I figure it, you are the one making axiomatic statements; you can either support them, like curiousgirl is insisting, or you can drop them and make your argument without them, or you can withdraw from the debate. You can't expect her to tamely accept them just because you say she should, just as she couldn't expect you to tamely accept any axioms she might state just because she says you should.

L-Chaim, so long as you believe you are justified in insisting your axioms be accepted without question, you might as well begin with the axion "L-Chaim is always right", thus winning every debate by default.

Wrong my faith in the Bible is not dependent on anyone else's involvement apart from Gods, and once again this is my axiom = the bible is the word of God....This is not directly part of the argument and hasn't been addressed in the debate as yet.

It is considered axiomatic to you. But that does not mean it is an axiom.

1: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit 2: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference3: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

(Bolded one is the most important for our purposes here, but they all apply.)

Yeah... why dont you pick the definition most beneficial to your presuppositions. How about we discuss the first definition ? The Bible is accepted world wide as an authoritative Historical religious document and as such has intrinsic merit.

Did you see the words "but they all apply"? No? Here, let me help:

(Bolded one is the most important for our purposes here, but they all apply.)

As I said above, at most 1/3rd of the world agrees that your God's word has any bearing. Not even 1/3rd of the world considers the Bible a Historical document at all. The other 2/3rds definitely do not. So definition 1 holds, which also reinforces number 3.

As for number 2 - I picked this one because you are having a debate, while using an "axiom" that your opponent does not accept. Therefore, 2, having to do with inferences and arguments, is the most appropriate.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 11:22:04 AM by Avatar Of Belial »

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

The logical syllogism was valid the primes's were coherent, the terms were defined. I obviously need work when communicating with atheists.....

As I mentioned earlier in this thread....yes, that may all be true. Without predjudice (as I haven't sat down carefully to consider all the ramifications), your argument is valid in construction, yes; and if your axioms are assumed as self-evident then yes: your argument is sound. Hurrah, you win the debate! Go back to your fellow Christians and boast of your victory!

But you are also right in that - yes, you DO need work communicating with atheists, since your axioms are NOT all self-evident and agreed by all. Sure - for those who believe, this argument is a winner.....but then who cares about an argument that only works if you BELIEVE it is true? My argument about cats works if you just BELIEVE all cats are blue, but so what?

There IS nothing wrong with your argument (subject to my caveat above) - but you have NOT demonstrated the truth of your axioms. Had I been curious girl, frankly my first response would have been no more than to say:

Once upon a time PBS had a show explaining what an academic debate is. The subject was nuclear disarmament or some other hot 1960s topic -- I forget. The debate was somewhere in the British Commonwealth, IIRC.

The format of such a debate is: A topic statement which defines and limits the debate.

RESOLVED: Chocolate is a healthful treat to be eaten at all meals.orRESOLVED: The government should outlaw chocolate as harmful.

2 opening statements are made outlining the thesis and suggesting what information will be introduced later.

Then there are 2 other speakers who give stemwinders, one for the pro and one for the con position. These are merely sophomoric (or freshman-ic) jerks who get the obvious insults out of the way.

Then the 2 main speakers lay out in some detail the pro and then the con position.

Then they criticize and cross examine each other.

So far L-Chaim has done little more than make a thesis statement. CuriousGirl has basically taken a pass on making a thesis statement. She has merely said the first premise of his syllogism is questionable. She has asked L-Chaim to go on to the body of his statement fleshing out his claim that morality is objective.

Quote from: L-Chaim

Prove what exactly ? that the torture and killing of children is wrong ? If you don't accept this as the breaking of a moral value there is no real purpose in debating morality with you.

A second point. The Bible god repeatedly ordered the torture and killing of children. (Conquered cities, bratty kids who sass adults, kids who laugh at a bald man, girls who need to see their families murdered so they can be given as slave wives to perpetuate the tribe of Benjamin.) Bible believers when confronted with such Biblical injunctions typically retreat from a claim that this is an absolute moral value and say it is a situational value.

Do you actually know what a priori and a posteriori knowledge actually are? A priori refers to knowledge that is independent of experience, whereas a posteriori refers to knowledge that is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. Therefore, the Bible is indeed a posteriori knowledge, since you have to have experience with the Bible to be able to make any claims about it at all.

Really you have to experience the Bible or do you have to read it and accept or reject the revealed truths found therein ? ....and you say i dont know what they mean !

In fact, you contradicted yourself by saying that it was revelatory knowledge but not a posteriori knowledge; something that is revelatory means you have to have experienced it.

The a priori example i gave was regarding the natural law. The Bible is revelation just like reading a newspaper is revelation there is a difference is reading about something and experience.One is assent to a truth claim and the other is taking part in an experience in my example murder. [/quote]

No offense, but I don't think you're ready for this debate. I mean, if you can have this kind of a basic misunderstanding of what other people are saying, what else might you be having trouble with?

This may be true i'm a delivery driver who left school with no exams to his name and is in a dead end job, i have no intellectual pride at all (I hope) as my education was less than basic but since my conversion i have had a thurst for truth, so let time tell if i'm ready or not, there is only one guy possibly two who have had the wherewithal to address the points i've made and actually engage the argument and ask for further clarification on the primes given, not just ask me to prove my axiom and take arguments out of context.

Really you have to experience the Bible or do you have to read it and accept or reject the revealed truths found therein ? ....and you say i dont know what they mean !

I did not say you didn't know what they meant, I asked if you knew. I asked because you stated that the Bible was revealed truth, except that you cannot possibly make this judgment without reading the Bible[1], meaning it is a posteriori. Yet you said that it was not a posteriori because it was revealed truth.

The a priori example i gave was regarding the natural law. The Bible is revelation just like reading a newspaper is revelation there is a difference is reading about something and experience.One is assent to a truth claim and the other is taking part in an experience in my example murder.

There is no real difference. When I read something, for it to have any meaning, I have to interpret what's written and put it in my own thoughts. That in effect means that I am experiencing what's written in a secondhand form. Interpretation is itself a way for the brain to experience something it didn't actually do; it works the same way regardless of whether you're talking about literary media, visual media, audio media, or audiovisual media. The fact that I, personally, have never been hit with a cannon shell does not mean I cannot gain benefit from secondhand experience via some recorded media to understand what it would be like, at least in part.

This may be true i'm a delivery driver who left school with no exams to his name and is in a dead end job, i have no intellectual pride at all (I hope) as my education was less than basic but since my conversion i have had a thurst for truth, so let time tell if i'm ready or not, there is only one guy possibly two who have had the wherewithal to address the points i've made and actually engage the argument and ask for further clarification on the primes given, not just ask me to prove my axiom and take arguments out of context.

Part of being ready for something like this is to be willing to listen to people who don't agree with you. That's what I was referring to. A number of the people here have a lot of experience with debating, and you could do much worse than to pay attention if they're telling you something, even if that something doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

Really you have to experience the Bible or do you have to read it and accept or reject the revealed truths found therein ? ....and you say i dont know what they mean !

I did not say you didn't know what they meant, I asked if you knew. I asked because you stated that the Bible was revealed truth, except that you cannot possibly make this judgment without reading the Bible[1], meaning it is a posteriori. Yet you said that it was not a posteriori because it was revealed truth.

The a priori example i gave was regarding the natural law. The Bible is revelation just like reading a newspaper is revelation there is a difference is reading about something and experience.One is assent to a truth claim and the other is taking part in an experience in my example murder.

There is no real difference. When I read something, for it to have any meaning, I have to interpret what's written and put it in my own thoughts. That in effect means that I am experiencing what's written in a secondhand form. Interpretation is itself a way for the brain to experience something it didn't actually do; it works the same way regardless of whether you're talking about literary media, visual media, audio media, or audiovisual media. The fact that I, personally, have never been hit with a cannon shell does not mean I cannot gain benefit from secondhand experience via some recorded media to understand what it would be like, at least in part.

This may be true i'm a delivery driver who left school with no exams to his name and is in a dead end job, i have no intellectual pride at all (I hope) as my education was less than basic but since my conversion i have had a thurst for truth, so let time tell if i'm ready or not, there is only one guy possibly two who have had the wherewithal to address the points i've made and actually engage the argument and ask for further clarification on the primes given, not just ask me to prove my axiom and take arguments out of context.

Part of being ready for something like this is to be willing to listen to people who don't agree with you. That's what I was referring to. A number of the people here have a lot of experience with debating, and you could do much worse than to pay attention if they're telling you something, even if that something doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

The fundamental basis of understanding something is to experience it; with reading, you experience what is written in a book by interpreting the words

I take on board your comment about debating experience !

I disagree that Reading constitutes experience as defined by A posteriori knowledge. I'm not saying you dont have to read the book to assent to the truth found in the book but it does not follow that experiencial knowledge comes from thinking on the a posteriori level. The two are separated fundamentally... Revelation is in the mind, experience is the physical act of doing something once you commit murder your have passed from a priori to a posteriori. You say there is no real difference i would like others to comment on this as i see a very big difference.

I disagree that Reading constitutes experience as defined by A posteriori knowledge. I'm not saying you dont have to read the book to assent to the truth found in the book but it does not follow that experiencial knowledge comes from thinking on the a posteriori level. The two are separated fundamentally... Revelation is in the mind, experience is the physical act of doing something once you commit murder your have passed from a priori to a posteriori. You say there is no real difference i would like others to comment on this as i see a very big difference.

The difference between a priori and a posteriori is not so cut and dried as that. A priori refers to something that one can determine without effort aside from basic comprehension, whereas a posteriori is something that one has to experience in some manner. Experience, in this case, does not automatically mean the physical act of doing something. The mental act of thinking about it can also count.

And, in any case, all propositions are either a priori or a posteriori. The proposition is either self-evident based on nothing more than a shared language, or it requires some shared experience to be able to understand. As you yourself said, one has to read a book in order to agree with it, and a revelation is still an experience.

In Christian Theism God is perfectly good and Holy and is the transcendent and eternal law giver and anchor for morality (God by nature is perfectly good). (Disagree or Disagree ?)

Jeremiah 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Samuel 6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Isaiha 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Ezekiel 5:10 Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds.

Ezekiel 5:16 When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for their destruction, and which I will send to destroy you: and I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread:

So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee: and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee. I the LORD have spoken it.